PUMP... YOU UP! TWO TOWERS!

[mtkafka]

After spending upwards of about 4 hours watching the special edition DVD of FOTR today ... im pumped. This movie is gonna rock da house dudes and dudettes!!!1 ITs gonna blow yo mind! And I dont mind seeing Legolas surfing on the steps. Cant wait to see how well Gollum is done. Gollum/Smeagol for best actor Oscar!

etc

[Wholly Schmidt]

I watched the extended Fellowship DVD with my father Friday and in response he read all of Two Towers Saturday. Needless to say we're both excited.

[Murph]

Just over two weeks...Not that I'm counting.

Unless they totally screw up the book to movie transition (and they very much didn't on Fellowship), this is going to be a really, really great movie.

Yeah, I'm way psyched. Best movie of 2002? I'm bettin' on it.

[Jakub]

Why would screwing up the book to movie translation mess the movie?

I mean, do I really want to see Tom Bombadil sing and sing and singing and singing and dancing and singing and lecturing and boring and singing and dancing and boring and killing me for 50 odd pages... err minutes? Or those idiotic family trees, or stupid two hundred page long discussions about the Ents discussing how they are explaining that their discussions about discussions about explaining on how long they discuss what they're going to explain they're discussing.

Worst. Books. Ever.

As source material for a fantasy world, they work great if you like reading sadistic prose. As novels, they blow.

The FOTR was an extremely entertaining movie, and if I didn't already know that the other two were already made and simply awaiting release, I'd be butchering the people claiming that the movies aren't faithful enough to the books. I'm so glad that all of the senseless, useless fluff was cut out.

[Wholly Schmidt]

The only thing I'm worried about is the Arwen/Aragorn relationship they're playing up in the movies. Arwen isn't anywhere in the Two Towers, but she shows up in the previews, and in a couple shots I believe she's with Aragorn (not sure if I'm remembering that part correctly or not). Aragorn has no time at all in the book for a trip back to Rivendell, does Arwen go to see him? Arwen replacing Glorfindel in FOTR didn't bother me much, but if things go farther from the books with each movie I don't quite know how it'll turn out.

[Murph]

Why would screwing up the book to movie translation mess the movie?

I mean, do I really want to see Tom Bombadil sing and sing and singing and singing and dancing and singing and lecturing and boring and singing and dancing and boring and killing me for 50 odd pages... err minutes?

Nah, you misunderstand me. I'm not asking them to not make any changes. I totally support most of the changes that Jackson made to Fellowship in the transition. (Not quite all, but 99%.) I just want them to be reasonable and not ruin the spirit of the books. I understand that you don't like the books -- which is one point you and I already differ on. I'm not asking him to not make changes -- that's his job. But it could still be a bad transition. I don't expect it will be, but it's possible.

I guess what I mean was "If he does as good a job adapting TTT (the book) into a movie as he did Fellowship, I'll be happy." (Yes, part of adapting is making changes to suit the medium.)

[Rywill]

The only thing I'm worried about is the Arwen/Aragorn relationship they're playing up in the movies. Arwen isn't anywhere in the Two Towers, but she shows up in the previews, and in a couple shots I believe she's with Aragorn (not sure if I'm remembering that part correctly or not). Aragorn has no time at all in the book for a trip back to Rivendell, does Arwen go to see him? Arwen replacing Glorfindel in FOTR didn't bother me much, but if things go farther from the books with each movie I don't quite know how it'll turn out.


Jackson is taking stuff from the appendix (which talks about Arwen and Aragorn) and putting it into the movie, even though it wasn't in the main text of the book. I'm not sure where exactly they meet up, though.

[Desslock]

Worst. Books. Ever.

Worst. troll. ever.

[wumpus]

Well, at least he read the books before spouting the nonsense.. this time. Based on his Warcraft III comments, I'm not sure he even played the game for any length of time.

[Tom Chick]

Based on his Warcraft III comments, I'm not sure he even played the game for any length of time.

Bwahaahahhaaha!

Pretty rich coming from the guy who 1) played two missions in Sacrifice before dubbing it "a glorified Quake", and 2) couldn't be bothered to RTFM to figure out how the camera works in Ratchet & Clank before complaining about it.

I'm sure there are other examples of wumpus going off half-cocked, but I can't be bothered to think of them.

-Tom

[Jason Becker]

"Unless they totally screw up the book to movie transition (and they very much didn't on Fellowship), this is going to be a really, really great movie. "

I think its in the DVD audio commentary where he mentions that TTT is the one that deviates the most from the books.

[Jakub]

Worst. Books. Ever.

Worst. troll. ever.

No, not trolling. Just a pet peeve of mine... I always go ranting off whenever I start off on the books. My apologies to everyone here.

[Jakub]

Well, at least he read the books before spouting the nonsense.. this time. Based on his Warcraft III comments, I'm not sure he even played the game for any length of time.

Yes, I only played it online non-stop for a week straight. If you or anyone can judge balance and long-term play value on that, or even three weeks, I'm sure Blizzard, Ensemble and Westwood have job openings for you.

[Jakub]

Nah, you misunderstand me. I'm not asking them to not make any changes.

No, I didn't misunderstand you... I just got off on a rant, like I always do when the books are brought up :(

[wumpus]

1) played two missions in Sacrifice before dubbing it "a glorified Quake"
Actually, it was more like five or six missions. And the guy who called it glorified quake was Dave Perry. I just piled on:

With Sacrifice's release coming any day now, Zaxxon caught up with David Perry, the giant President of Shiny. Here's an excerpt from the interview with this 6'8" giant:

SG: What makes Sacrifice cool? You've said on your site (www.dperry.com) that you won't take on a new game anymore without a 'hook' that will make the game 'different and fun.' What's Sacrifice's hook? DP: It makes the world of RPGs a fun place to be for hard core ACTION game fans. I honestly have NEVER seen an RPG with action this intense. It's like Quake meets Diablo. I am personally way too impatient for traditional RPG style games... Sacrifice steps up the pace about 20 notches. So it's really a very fresh, truly cross-genre game. Of course I am biased, but trust me if you play against someone who knows how to play the game well online, you will not have time to reach for your coffee. (Seriously)
Sacrifice is not a bad game by any means, but there's not a lot of strategy involved. We know, we know, you have a washington monument sized hard-on for the game. And in fact, any game where you get to select from a list of gods is AOK (or is that AOM?) in your book.


couldn't be bothered to RTFM to figure out how the camera works in Ratchet & Clank before complaining about it.
Actually, I was well aware that L1 switches me to first person view. Tapping it generally achieves the desired effect, however, it also stops you dead in your tracks. Not cool. I'm running along, I want the camera to snap to the direction I'm looking (duh), I tap L1 and.. come to a screeching halt while the camera jarringly and instantly switches to the direction I'm facing. Not exactly what I had in mind. I am not happy with the camera controls in this game. The game sometimes decides what camera angle I need (eg, traversing the giant block with the moving squares on the obstacle course to get the slingshot thing), and sometimes it doesn't. Which is why I frequently end up.. facing the camera. How is that EVER useful? Why can't the camera follow me a little more consistently? I have no problems using the right stick to move the camera totally manually in splinter cell-- but here, the right stick moves the camera too goddamn slowly!

Anyway, I've played enough of Ratchet and Clank. It's OK, but I don't see what's so supercalifragilisticexpialidocious about it. I'm going to give it as a gift to a 6 year old relative of mine, which was always my backup plan. Or maybe he'd prefer Sacrifice.. hmm..

[Tom Chick]

...a lengthy superfluous response to a two-line taunt...

Hey everybody, I trolled a troll! What do I win?

-Tom

[Met_K]

Battlequeen 2020! What's your address so I can mail it to you, Tom?

[graller]

I read an article in Time about this and now I am more worried about TTT. They talk how Jackson says he went WAY away from the books in this one. Helms Deep is the battle to save mankind?? And I sense some cheesy Aragorn/Eowyn/Arwen sub plot from what I saw in the trailers. Don't read this the wrong way - I loved what they did in FOTR and I trust them but still a might concerned...

[Bub, Andrew]

Helms Deep is the battle to save mankind??

I haven't read the Time article but this isn't so outrageous.
The "human" realm the books deal with consists of Rohan and Gondor (of course there are more, but as I recall their decadent when compared with Gondor and Rohan, regardless, they're out of the direct line of fire - I'm sure Desslock has this memorized...). Anyway, if Helm's Deep hadn't happened, Isengard could have swept Rohan and then sandwiched Gondor between their army and Mordor's army. This is why Saruman thought it so important to defang Rohan with Wormtongue. The result of Helm's Deep is the fall of Isengard, the destruction of Saruman's army, and the removal of a significant backdoor threat... all of which throws a big wrench in Sauron's warplans -and- unites Rohan with Gondor for the final battle, which acts a diversion for the ring-bearer.

So far as Jackson making changes goes. Whatever. I'm a huge Tolkien fan but I approve of 90% of FOTR's changes and I'm really impressed with Jackson's devotion from the DVD appendices. He's got the right idea, respect, eye, etc., I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on any changes he wants to make.

[Murph]

Me, too...Except the removal of the scouring of the Shire. I've heard that he's cutting that, and I think that's a cryin' shame.

[voltaic]

...a lengthy superfluous response to a two-line taunt...

Hey everybody, I trolled a troll! What do I win?

You got the power-up, Tom! You win the game!

[Supertanker]

Me, too...Except the removal of the scouring of the Shire. I've heard that he's cutting that, and I think that's a cryin' shame.

But in this era of Platinum Director's Ultra Mega Versions of the DVD Collector's Edition Gift Pak (tm), is any scene ever really cut? Even if they didn't shoot it, they might go back and make it later.

[Murph]

I hope so. :)

[Brad Grenz]

The only thing I think they fucked up on so far is how they explain what the Uruk Hai are. A cross between orcs and goblin-men? From what I understand orc=goblin. They're synonymous. The Uruk Hai are supposed to be a crossing of orcs/goblins and humans. That's why they can travel and fight in the daylight, something regular orcs can't deal with. They even kinda made things worse in the extended edition cause instead of just having Saruman say it once, Gandalf tells Elrond the exact same thing in Rivendale. Other than that everything works beautifully well. Oh, and I guess the Balrog having wings is debatable. In the two duels involving Balrogs covered in the LOTRs and the Silmarillion both times the Balrog, like, falls. Really far. You think this might not be a problem for a creature that can fly...

[Murph]

I thought the Balrogs had wings in the books, too...Though that does make the falling questionable.

I thought Gandalf was the onlly one who ever talked about the Uruk-Hai's creation -- which I totally agree was a terrible mistake.

My other problem is that the whip unwraps from Gandalf's leg, which makes it look really...odd when he falls. That just shouldn't have happened. Other than that, I totally support all of the changes in FotR.

[Brad Grenz]

I thought Gandalf was the onlly one who ever talked about the Uruk-Hai's creation

Really? Maybe I'm misremembering. Whoever said it, it's said twice in the extended cut and only once in the theatrical cut.

I think in the books it says something to the effect that shadow spread out behind the Balrog like a great pair of wings, but not that it had wings.

[Murph]

Ah, my bad then. On both counts. :)

[Chris Nahr]

I think in the books it says something to the effect that shadow spread out behind the Balrog like a great pair of wings, but not that it had wings.

Correct, but the winged version looks cooler and besides it's been that way since Ultima. :)

As for the orcs/goblins confusion, you are correct that orcs and goblins are synonymous in the book. However, there are different sizes and shapes of orcs/goblins, so Jackson apparently decided it would be clearer to distinguish them by name as well.

[Wholly Schmidt]

I thought orcs were evil versions of elves and goblins were the evil version of dwarves? Did I make that up? I could've sworn I read that in one of the books.

[DavidCPA]

I thought orcs were evil versions of elves and goblins were the evil version of dwarves? Did I make that up? I could've sworn I read that in one of the books.

I believe this discussion has already occured on this board but I am too lazy to search for it. Anyone remember (or motivated enough to find) the link?

-DavidCPA

[Ben Sones]

I thought the Balrogs had wings in the books, too...Though that does make the falling questionable.

Not everything with wings can fly. Balrogs are the turkeys of Morgoth.

[Desslock]

I thought orcs were evil versions of elves and goblins were the evil version of dwarves? Did I make that up? I could've sworn I read that in one of the books.

No, the names are synonymous. Goblins are orcs, and they are twisted versions of elves created by the first dark lord, Melkor, who is "Satan" in Tolkien's mythos. As Chris indicated, as they've existed for thousands of years, there's small/large versions -- the Uruks in the south are huge, relative to the ones in the misty mountains that live near Legolas's kingdom and were featured in the Hobbit. In the movie, in Moria, Legolas actually refers to them as "goblins", highlighting the fact that the names are synonymous.

The Uruk-hai were created by Saruman from the larger orcs, the Uruks, and men to be able to travel in daylight, etc. The quote in the movie "created from orcs and goblin-men" isn't necessarily inconsistent (although it bothered me too -- topic of a thread when the movie was released). Uh, "goblin-men" (a term never used in the Tolkien books)could presumable just mean a group of savage men who have earned the derogatory goblin name because of their savagry.

On the other point, whether the Balrogs have wings has been debated for years. In Fellowship, the only place where Balrogs are described (although they are constantly in the Silmarillion), there's two ambigous references -- the first one refers to surrounding shadow that spread out like wings (implying no actual wings), but later there's a reference to "its wings", which is either just another reference to the shadow effect, or confirmation that they have wings, depending upon which side you want to argue. The illustrated version of the book gave the Balrog wings, and Tolkien apparently never objected to the look, so it has at least as much credibility as the wingless version, heh.

Stefan

[Rywill]

A correction to my previous post: I recently read that Arwen does not appear in TTT except in dream sequences and flashback sequences. She and Aragorn are never physically present together during the timeline of TTT, and she does not appear at Helm's Deep (although other elves do).

[Bub, Andrew]

On the other point, whether the Balrogs have wings has been debated for years.

Wow. That strikes me as very sad.

Anyway, the DVDs make it pretty clear that the reason the Balrog has wings in Jackson's movie is because it's based on the artwork and paintings of that Ian guy with the bad teeth (either that or the other guy with the Prince Valient hair).

[Desslock]

On the other point, whether the Balrogs have wings has been debated for years.

Wow. This strikes me as very sad.

Heh, no kidding - Tolkien's books inspire a lot of passionate reactions, but that quote of mine is misleading. I didn't mean to suggest the there's been an ongoing debate for years over such a crazy detail -- just that it's a detail that has been frequently questioned over the years. There's really little to say on the point, since there only a couple of descriptive references, so those debates don't last long, heh.

[Bub, Andrew]

As for the rest of my message, you have to admit it was awfully canny of Jackson to hire those two artists. How better to realize Middle Earth than to base it on artwork that's familiar to anyone who ever owned a LOTR calender? I didn't even realize it at the time, instead thinking to myself "That's exactly how I *imagined* it!"

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, that was a smart move on Jackson's part. Who better to visualize Middle Earth than artists that have already been doing so for years? I think the guy you are trying to remember is Alan Lee (I haven't watched any of the extras yet), who did a phenomenal series of watercolor paintings for the latest illustrated version of the books. He pretty much set the look for Moria and Lothlorien (right down to the pale, washed out look that Jackson used in those sequences to mimick the look of Lee's watercolor paintings), as well as Orthanc (check the cover illustration for the illustrated version of the Two Towers--it's a dead ringer for the rendition of Orthanc in the movie).

[Bub, Andrew]

(check the cover illustration for the illustrated version of the Two Towers--it's a dead ringer for the rendition of Orthanc in the movie).

You've got to watch the extras then.
SPOILER
-
-
-
-
Jackson asked Alan to "finish" that painting so he'd know what the top of Orthanc is supposed to look like. In the original, the top is cut off.

[Wholly Schmidt]

A correction to my previous post: I recently read that Arwen does not appear in TTT except in dream sequences and flashback sequences. She and Aragorn are never physically present together during the timeline of TTT, and she does not appear at Helm's Deep (although other elves do).Oh yes, that's what was bothering me that I couldn't remember. From the preview you see Haldir and company with bows drawn in the battle. I wonder how Jackson got to that.

[Met_K]

Haldir at Helm's Deep? That should be interesting.

But people keep making a mistake of comparing these to the books. These aren't the books. Jackson has to tell a story, from beginning to end, in 9 hours. NINE HOURS. He has to fully develop the characters, make us care for them, show us the enemies, make us hate them, give us action, give us love, give us everything we've come to expect... in NINE hours? Encompassing thirteen hundred pages of text in NINE hours? Sorry, you know what, I'd hate to be on the end of that stick.

He has to do what he has to do to make the movies interesting, to keep us entertained, to make us care, to make us hate, to make us feel everything we're supposed to feel and still like the movie. Sticking to the books is a very close second to that. Besides, haven't you ever wondered what the books would have been like had so and so done this, and so and so had done that? I have. He can take artistic-freedom if he wishes, I don't care. As long as the end-product isn't blasphemy and is still enjoyable.

He removes the scouring of the shire? OK, fine. In return he makes Helm's Deep into what looks to be the greatest cinematic battle sequence ever. Fine by me.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Here, I just screen cap'd the shot in question:

http://people.clemson.edu/~schmidt/misc/haldir.jpg

Looks like him, but no guarantee. A bit harder to tell from a capture as well, looks better in motion, check it yourself if you've got the new DVD's. He is credited as being in the movie from IMDB though.

*EDIT*
Clemson network is wonky, link may or may not work.

[Desslock]

Here, I just screen cap'd the shot in question:

http://people.clemson.edu/~schmidt/misc/haldir.jpg

Looks like him, but no guarantee. A bit harder to tell from a capture as well, looks better in motion, check it yourself if you've got the new DVD's. He is credited as being in the movie from IMDB though.

It's him. A small contingent from Lorien appears at Helms Deep. That has some of the Tolkien-purists up in arms, which is a bit fanatical. Even in the books, the whole point was not that the Elves didn't want to fight (they did contribute, in several major battles described in the Appendices) - but just were no longer able to assemble a massive army to save the day, as they did at the end of the Second Age (with the help of the Numenoreans and some dwarves).

Stefan

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, I don't mind some elves showing up at Helms Deep. It's a real challenge for Jackson to adapt these books without confusing the uninitiated. You're going to get people wondering why those elf pussies won't help. I wonder if he's ever going to mention why Dwarves and Elves hate eachother so much. Jacksom might as well go ahead and make the Hobbit and then try and adapt the Silmarillion as a miniseries or something. He should be pretty rich once all is said and done with the LOTRs.

[Bub, Andrew]

Jacksom might as well go ahead and make the Hobbit and then try and adapt the Silmarillion as a miniseries or something.

God I hope he does the Hobbit while those sets, armor, etc., are all handy. Or maybe contracts it out to someone good enough to carry the torch. I imagine Jackson is going to take a long break post-Return of the King, but I get the feeling Sir Ian would be up for it.

After watching the DVD extras about what Gimli went through, I wonder if torturing 13 actors playing dwarves is worth it though. Ah, but to see Smaug, the Trolls (moving), perhaps Beorn, and to ride in a barrel to Long Lake. That would be fine.

[graller]

I was just thinking the same thing this weekend Bub. Having watched the extended version for the second time all I was thinking about other then wondering about time warping to 12/20/2002 was how cool having them do the Hobbit would be. I want to see Gandalf end the battle of the 5 Armies.

Does anyone else agree that Gandalf the Grey looks better then Gandalf the White? :lol:

[Met_K]

I'm hoping with just about everything I have that they do The Hobbit, and I have to think that, given the same cast (with the obvious exceptions) and crew, why not? It would be fantastic.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Wasn't John Rhys Davis just having an allergic reaction to his make-up? There's no reason to believe everyone cast as a dwarf would have that problem. I'd be more worried for Ian Holm having to have his face taped back for the entire movie as "young" Bilbo.

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, he was allergic to the stuff they used. Presumably most people don't have that kind of reaction, as all the elaborate makeup jobs were done using the same materials. It must have been rough for John. Normally I'd think they'd have just recast the part, but they must have wanted him really bad. He had to have like 3 days of down time between shooting days with him in makeup so his skin could grow back...

[Met_K]

I'd imagine it's probably that and the fact that John would've killed to keep the part.

[Nick Hyle]

I recall seeing an interview with Jackson where he said this whole shebang was kicked off when someone (the original co-producer who dropped out guy?) was talking to him about doing The Hobbit, and Jackson replied that he thought The Hobbit would be an extraordinarily difficult book to turn into a coherent movie, and he wasn't sure he could pull it off without polishing up his skills first. Polish how? I dunno, film something more straightforward first, like Lord of the Rings. BAM! (Then years of chasing funding, pitching to suits, getting the OK to do all 3, etc.)

That's how Jackson told it, anyway.

This might have been in the Charlie Rose interview with PJ in the FotR prerelease publicity frenzy. Great interview.

[antlers]

I thought orcs were evil versions of elves and goblins were the evil version of dwarves? Did I make that up? I could've sworn I read that in one of the books.

There is no such thing as "evil versions" of dwarves or men-- since they are both mortal, and can choose good or evil themselves.

But orcs are evil versions of elves and trolls are evil versions of ents.

I feel dirty for knowing that...

[Thierry Nguyen]

Jacksom might as well go ahead and make the Hobbit and then try and adapt the Silmarillion as a miniseries or something.

I imagine Jackson is going to take a long break post-Return of the King, but I get the feeling Sir Ian would be up for it.

Jackson himself said that he'd probably do a small gore-filled horror comedy movie (working title: Unstoppable/Unending [I forgot which Un-phrase] Rot) after RotK, and AintItCool is claiming that Universal is courting him to do King Kong in 2006.

[Bub, Andrew]

and AintItCool is claiming that Universal is courting him to do King Kong in 2006.

He spent a long time courting them on that prior to LOTR. I hope he goes for it, that would be something to see and the Dino version needs updating I think.

Will the original ever come out on DVD?

[Met_K]

Holy fucking shit (http://us.imdb.com/Details?0167261)

Look at that rating. Look at it... just... look. If that's even a sample of what the voting will look like, give or take ~.5, then... damn, just damn. Fuck Godfather, I can't wait to see The Two Towers.

[Tyjenks]

Need a little help here. I have not heard much about this Tolkein guy. I am going to go see a movie in a couple of weeks. Should I see Two Towers or Rob Scneider's Hot Chick?

And is Hot Chick Tom's high school autobiographical treatment he sent around to the studios?

[Murph]

Did you ever see Fellowship, Ty? If not, you should see it first. :)

I sure wanna know how people are rating the movie at IMDB. It's not like most of them have seen it, if any of them at all. (I know there's a warez version out there somewhere, so some of them might have.)

[Tom Chick]

It's not like most of them have seen it, if any of them at all.

There have been some screenings already. I know a few people who've seen it already.

Of course, I live in LA... :)

-Tom

[Met_K]

You forget that it was debuted at Toronto a while back, and has had limited screenings all over the place. Not to mention that the way the imdb is setup, it's pretty fucking hard to forge a vote.

[Aszurom]

Here's a toy-fair picture of the Balrog action figure... this settles the "wings" discussion, since apparently the one in the film DID have wings that were shrouded in that wall of smoke.

http://www.americandreamcomics.com/adc-arch/nss-folder/americandreamcomicscomimages20/LOTR%2520Balrog.jpg